Remember kids... always wear a helmet. (The almighty bikeradar helmet thread)

You are implying if not saying that helmet wearers contribute to the confusion / ignorance. Sorry, that is bullshit. I wear a helmet because I want to. Fuck you [Sorry, but I feel it is appropriate]. If people are ignorant then that is their fault and the fault of the media and pro-helmet campaigners who don't stick to the facts. It is not my fault for wearing a helmet.

I am saying that people who wear helmets then cycle like dicks are adding to the problem. If that is not you then chill, I am not blaming you and your helmet for anything.

If it is you then yes, you are a problem and fuck you right back. No offense like.

I take your point and I am perhaps a little guilty of being over-confident about the possibility of minor benefit at higher speeds.

Saying that I am absolutely adamant that if (for example) I were about to be hit over the head with a sledgehammer travelling at 25 mph I'd be sensible to put on my helmet. Would you turn one down on the basis it would do absolutely no good or would you stick one on on the bais that it might? (I appreciate that this is a different thing to the rationality of riding with or without a helmet).

You may be adamant, that doesn't make you right (in fact it just makes you look more stupid, you can take that personally if you want).
And your version of Pascal's wager is just as useful in a godless world.

Are you saying that if you knew someone was about to hit you over the head with a sledgehammer at 25 mph you would not put on a bike helmet if offered one?

I be more concern to why someone is about to hit me with a sledgehammer and try to avoid it in the first place.

At 25mph, the helmet will very likely not to be effective, especially with a fucking sledgehammer.

If somebody was going to hit me over the head with a sledgehammer at 25mph I'd ask for a magnet to put on my head

If wearing a helmet gives you a level of comfort and you feel it may help in an accident then wear one.
The main issue I have is the continual "I would have been dead if I wasn't wearing my helmet" statements that are so often made. It is impossible to know that and stating it just adds to the ignorance behind it all.

So to me, those helmet wearers, the ones who protect against the low risk of a specific low-speed head injury but not the high risk of undertaking a left turning vehicle, are a problem because they confuse the picture of what a responsible, safe cyclist looks like. And that confusion becomes a real problem when questions of accident liability and contributory negligence have to be considered.

Really?

That is silly.

Silly is taking five words out of a paragraph and considering them out of context when in-context they were clearly explained and qualified.

I'd agree with brokenbetty that when helmets provide a false sense of security and do not cause riders to consider more real and present danger, then those riders are being at best naive, and at worst dangerously reckless.

I've thought overnight. Sorry to post like an arsehole and sorry for taking your post personally.

But I do very much disagree with your last paragraph.

Problems - bad cyclists, bad drivers, people who make arguments without the evidence to back it up.

Not a problem - people cycling wearing a helmet.

I am sorry but your mentioning of helmet wearing lorry undertakers is disingenuous. I really do think that it is like saying "black muggers are a problem". No - the problem is muggers, not black muggers. The problem is not helmet wearing undertakers, it is undertakers.

Except a helmet does alter people's assessments of risk (as proved by anyone who thinks it's too dangerous to cycle except with a helmet).

I really do think that it is like saying "black muggers are a problem". No - the problem is muggers, not black muggers. The problem is not helmet wearing undertakers, it is undertakers.

except she did not say "helmet wearers are a problem".

she said a certain type of cyclist who wears a helmet is a problem in a very specific way, where the "problem" is not road safety as such, but the perception of what a safe cyclist looks like. that paragraph is clearly part of the rest of the post, it is about how people judge different cyclists by appearance, including whether they are wearing a helmet or not.

really I thought it was quite clear.

Silly is taking five words out of a paragraph and considering them out of context when in-context they were clearly explained and qualified.

I'd agreewith brokenbetty that when helmets provide a false sense of security and do not cause riders to consider more real and present danger, then those riders are being at best naive, and at worst dangerously reckless.

But do they really?

The problem is not helmet wearing undertakers, it is undertakers.

But seriously, how many undertakers do you see wearing anything on their head other than a top hat? And the problem isn't undertakers, it's people riding up the inside of left-turning lorries providing all that extra demand for undertakers.

And going about your undertaking business by carrying a coffin on a trailer on the back of your bike is not really showing the respect many may require in their funeral.

But seriously, how many undertakers do you see wearing anything on their head other than a top hat? And the problem isn't undertakers, it's people riding up the inside of left-turning lorries providing all that extra demand for undertakers.

Funny that. My first near death cycling experience was undertaking a hearse. talk about a lesson in mortality.

That is a prick of an argument - me being adamant does not make me wrong either. Try evidence.

Where is your fucking evidence?

Your posts are littered with "I believe" or "it's common sense" or "in my experience".

Common sense, belief, and experience count for fuck all when you're talking about EVIDENCE.

If you want to make a sledgehammer claim, actually go and do it, don't just say, it's common sense. I'll be here waiting for your findings.

And going about your undertaking business by carrying a coffin on a trailer on the back of your bike is not really showing the respect many may require in their funeral.

Although some people might actually demand it. I know there are motorcycle undertakers, with a sidecar hearse, and green burials are popular with tree huggers. There must be a demand for a coffin carrying bike trailer. That's a new business plan for somebody right there, I'll take 10%.

Approaching 4600 posts over a period of 6 years... Has this issue been resolved yet?

http://road.cc/content/news/90737-wiggins-cycle-helmets-should-be-compulsory-and-ipods-banned-while-riding-bike

But will the undertaker wear a helmet? And I'm sure Rapha do a jersey with a black armband!

Although some people might actually demand it. I know there are motorcycle undertakers, with a sidecar hearse, and green burials are popular with tree huggers. There must be a demand for a coffin carrying bike trailer. That's a new business plan for somebody right there, I'll take 10%.

This does exist, my green burial tree hugger undertaker friend sent me the link when it was up for sale last year.

^^ see!

Well found, it's a bugger to find on google even if you limit your search to results from pdx only :-)

I never tire of pointing out that impact speed has absolutely nothing to do with the speed you're riding at.

Absolutely nothing whatsoever.

It's entirely possible to come off a bike at 25mph and barely even hit your head. What's the* impact speed* in that situation?

You can also fall over while walking down the street and hit your head with enough force to knock you out or even kill you. Again, what's the impact speed?

This 'helmets protect up to a certain speed' thing is nothing other than marketing bollocks. The important factor is the force they offer protection against, but a figure like 15N is completely meaningless to the average consumer.